President Joe Biden signed legislation Dec. 29, 2022, that funds the executive branch for fiscal year 2023. Included in that legislation is $10 million for unleaded fuel testing and evaluation for general aviation.
The new legislation also recognizes the collaborative industry-government effort to move general aviation to a fleetwide drop-in, lead-free fuel solution no later than 2030 through its Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative.
As a government-industry partnership, EAGLE is focused on how to safely eliminate the use of leaded aviation fuel by the end of 2030 without adversely affecting the safety and operation of the existing piston-engine fleet.
The initiative includes four pillars:
- Develop Fuel Infrastructure and Access Viability
- Support Research, Development and Innovation
- Evaluate and Authorize Safe Fuels
- Establish Necessary Regulation, Policy, and Programmatic Activities
The funds allocated by Congress in the new legislation will support the EAGLE partnership and may be used to expedite fuel testing and evaluation for safe unleaded fuels being assessed in the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) program, leading to an FAA fleet authorization.
Two unleaded 100-octane fuel candidates, developed by Afton Chemical/Phillips 66 and LyondellBasell/VP Racing, are undergoing testing under the PAFI program and are both showing progress, according to officials with the EAGLE initiative.
The funds also may be used to conduct field demonstration programs for 100-octane unleaded fuels that have received FAA Type Certificate (TC) or Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) approvals. General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s G100UL fuel received authorization via the STC path in September 2022. Swift Fuels expects to receive STC authorization of its 100R unleaded higher-octane fuel in 2023.
Keep trying, and you might get $100B+. It has worked for others.
I could add a long rant about government graft and waste but let me just say ditto to the excellent poster above. You poster identified the problem very clearly. Thanks, Neil
I can help!
I have an airplane I am willing to use for fuel testing! Send a chunk of the $10 Million over my way and I’ll burn it up!
I’ll have 2000 hours until TBO when I pick it up next week… will that work?
Perhaps a better use of funding would be in the revision of ASTM D910 and DEF STAN 91-090 by integrating unleaded avgas into existing consensus standards. This would give refineries a business path to distribution and aircraft/engine manufacturers a strategic target for design and operation. It would also provide users key FAA acceptance without the burden of an STC.
So are they giving GAMI some $$ to more quickly roll out distribution? Why do these other companies get any more money??? They lost the race and they have wasted many millions over decades with funding for development and testing when they actually did very little INTENTIONALLY, only producing a façade they were doing something. GAMI already delivered a product. Swift sounds like they are almost there. If the government really wanted to get this through, they would incentivize refineries to produce it and also tell the airports to use up their 100LL and transition over to the new. They would also work to make it closer to the price of pump gas to encourage the use of it. It’s already proven they can mix in any ratio, so just do it! Even at a lower price, it may provide FBO’s more profit to operate and provide better services. Federal government bureauracy… Everyone is sick of it, and yet it like trying to stop a train with the brakes of a moped. The FAA isn’t exactly a good steward of any tax money, but that would open open up a whole other can of worms.
An issue that is seldom mentioned is the question of why does the FAA now need to approve the fuel.
Check your type certificate and see what fuel the aircraft you fly is approved for. There is a good chance it is NOT 100LL. Now do you have a STC to use 100LL?, no, because you need to use “an aviation gasoline of xxx octane or higher” that,or similar, is what the T.C. will state. The first gasoline “approved” by the FAA was Auto Gas in 1982. That is because the gasoline was not produced and marketed as “Aviation Gasoline”. Up until that time the FAA approved the “engine” and the “aircraft” and they were approved with whatever fuel the MANUFACTURER said to use. i now have two aircraft one Lycoming powered certified for 100 octane (not 100LL) the othe a Cont. A-65 aporoved with 73 octane Army, an UNLEADED avgas that was no longer made when my plane was built.
Another horrifically wasteful bureaucratic blender special interest boondoggle by those making backroom bribes and deals, when the fact is that blue 100LL AvGas is NOT a problem now, nor has it ever been, notwithstanding contrary propaganda proclamations by the “greenie” groups! To these environmental greenie crazies, I SAY PROVE IT!
Only one thing IS for sure, and that is, General Aviation’s fleet of high performance, fuel injected, turbo-charged engines REQUIRE some lead in order to provide proper flame front, combustion, cooling and lubrication of valves – or they can be ruined.
Really!! $10M to subsidize two companies to test their fuels that are showing “progress”! I think the money would be better spent to get the existing TC/STC approved UL fuel into production and distribution. We could be totaling UL avgas by 2024 if that kind of money was put behind it. Instead we will spend tax dollars to continue R&D for private company.
$10M and 7 years to figure out how to drive UL from the refinery to the airport?
And initial mixing of UL with a little 100LL in the existing airport equipment going into aircraft already certified for both is an issue because????
Why is the government spending R&D money on the PAFI program when private industry has approved fuels ready to go? It would make more sense to spend the money to facilitate production and/or infrastructure enhancements to get the already approved fuels to the airports. Maybe the wrong people would then get the money? Frustrating!
Why is the government spending R&D money on the PAFI program when private industry has approved fuels ready to go? It would make more sense to spend the money to facilitate production and/or infrastructure enhancements to get the already approved fuels to the airports. Maybe the wrong people would then get the money? Frustrating!
More wasteful spending from a government that has already put our nation over $31T in the red. When Ronald Reagan first took office in the White House in 1981, our debt was under $1T. And flying back then was a lot more affordable. Lead free aviation fuels have existed for over four decades. They are called Mogas (ethanol-free auto fuel) and Jet-A (a variant of diesel fuel). SAF too, the latest gift to Big Ag by turning food and animal feed into fuels, is another huge waste of our money and precious land that should be used to feed people and livestock. Follow the money – who is really benefitting from the development of boutique fuels that few really want? If any fuel is being promoted in order to “save the planet” (from what, we are never told), you know that it is not going to be economically viable.